“He was absolutely inspiring. In a very moving way, he reminded us what sacrifice really is,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews, estimating the persuader-in-chief turned several votes.

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week,” said Andrews.

“It made a lot of people feel a little less sorry for themselves about their political problems,” he added. “This is an emotional time for a lot of our folks politically, but this is politics and I think he correctly pointed out what’s a heck of a lot more important.”

I'm trying to imagine the political environment that Washington Democrats occupy. A President glibly lays out that analogy, and it is received — without any wincing or taint of disgust — as awesome inspiration. These are the minds that will be making decisions for us for quite a while.

And also note that the following is not an analogy but a way of drawing a contrast:

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week...”

And seeing how it comprises the reason for your post, a quote that demonstrates the president's invocation of Fort Hood would have been nice. Though too nice for NY Daily News to print, apparently.

In a similar vein, why could some of us analyze this president's background and predict this outcome last November (and vote accordingly) while others, many sophisticated and learned, lacked that discernment?

Where is the quote where Obama analogizes the self-sacrifice of military service to the "profile in courage" of voting against the wishes of one's constituents? The quote in the post makes a contrast. And Obama's quote at the end of the article emphasizes opportunity.

Apparently the "political environment" Democrats occupy allow them to interpret Obama's comment as indicating that political risks don't compare to military risks, in terms of the level of sacrifice. Therefore, to refuse to take a political risk makes one look even pettier than were one to refuse military service or a particular assignment.

Such nuances are apparently lost on a rabid crowd of those living and breeding in the red-meat.

Here is a comment I made here at Althouse on 11/5/09 about Rep. Rob Andrews:

"Rep. Andrews is the guy who resigned his House seat to challenge Lautenberg in the US Senate primary. Andrews promised, if he lost the Senate primary, he would not take the House seat back. The Dem party picked Andrews' wife to run for his House seat (how convenient!).

After he lost the Senate primary, Andrews quickly went back on his promise and ran again for his old House seat. So he is just the average lying scumbag Congress critter IMO."

I'm not sure I understand this. Was the Man-child President making the claim that Democrats voting against their conscience and suffering for it was like the soldiers at Ft. Hood being mowed down by a crazed terrorist?

I know he's the World's Greatest Speaker, but I can't believe he said something so stupid.

I must not understand.

Surely he meant to say, "Vote against your conscience because it will make ME look good." At least that would be more honest.

And for the trolls who think that the vote was close - Pelosi had 39 votes to fall back upon. Winning NY-23 with Dede (who would vote for the bill) or with Owens (who said he was against the bill until he was sworn in, and then changed his sacred conscience when he was sworn in) was an irrelevancy for this particular bill.

And in the end it would matter, as the bill that comes out of committee will be unlike what the Blue Dogs voted for.

Don't blame DeDe for throwing the race in NY-23. Blame the voters in Nov-08 who thought they could simply continue a Democrat stranglehold on the Constitution with no ill effects.

They look at a man shouting Allahu Akbar while murdering people and diagnose it as PTSD. Of course, they will consider their own story of voting for a pork bill that gives, finally, at long last, health insurance coverage to per diem computer programmers the most inspiring example of political courage since Peel and the Corn Laws.

The people who are to blame for this are the 7 million conservatives who stayed home rather than voting for McCain. They're the ones who handed this country over to a communist administration.

At least the ones who were hoodwinked by the Demos came out and voted. However wrongly. If you didn't vote last year, you have no business crying now.

As far as NY-23 is concerned, the 3 out of 4 undecideds who listened to Scuzzy Favors can always tell themselves it wouldn't have mattered, but the reality is, Hoffman and one more Blue Dog would have prevented the Obamanation.

The greater obscenity is these crypto-communist Congressmen using the dead soldiers at Hood to cover their betrayal of this country. This is about creating what RahmBo calls a permanent Democratic majority, which translates to no democracy or republic at all.

What political environment do Washington Republicans occupy? One where carrying around photos of Dachau and calling the president a nazi is all kosher, apparently, from watching Michelle Bachman up on the hill with her tea party ballsacks. Where was the post decrying that glib analogy?

I would have thought cheers would erupt anytime a politician tells other politicians to stop feeling sorry for themselves... but no, another occasion to bash O.

Scott said... "With all due respect, Ann, I think it's a little off to call Obama glib when you committed the equally glib act of voting for the guy. What the hell do you expect from him, anyway?"

It's not "glib" to vote for someone. I'm tired of pointing out that I was left with a choice of 2 individuals, neither of whom I trusted. You can only be "glib" when you are forming your own expressions.

Aaron John said... "You are doing nothing more than throwing red meat at your right-wingnut base.And in a predictable and banal way, no less."

Throwing banally? Are you Marc Ambinder?

Paddy O. said: "Red meat is the political environment that the right-wingnut base occupies."

Sucking up to Rush Limbaugh is not a way to prove one's "red meat only as a last resort!" credentials.

Mobilizing the wingers won't do it. What you mistakenly perceive as "red meat" from the left is actually a whole lot more well-reasoned than anything coming out of the right these days, with some rare exceptions here and there.

What political environment do Washington Republicans occupy? One where carrying around photos of Dachau and calling the president a nazi is all kosher, apparently, from watching Michelle Bachman up on the hill with her tea party ballsacks. Where was the post decrying that glib analogy?

The use of Hitler comparisons is a lefty thing. That's what you guys did for 8 years, but you don't remember Bushitler, etc., of course.

But apparently this is all it takes to curtail the real news of the day: Discussion of the bill. I've been cautioned about being too loquacious in the past. So talk amongst yourselves. Don't be afraid to make it petty!

wv: traph. A combination between what is sprung in right-wing circles and phphphphph!!!!

Watching/listening to the Obama administration during the Ft. Hood coverage has been painful. There is obviously NOTHING that they won't twist and spin and manipulate for their own egos/political gain. It would be sickening if I hadn't already grown so accustomed to it.As to Ann Althouse voting for Obama, that surprises the hell out of me. Whatever people thought about McCain, I doubt anyone doubted his love for country. If forced to choose between two candidates, neither of whom you trust, why pick the one who has never shown anything but contempt for America? Boggles the mind.

How can you attribute the massacre to something other than terrorism when it comes to Hassan's personal motive and culpability, yet say the casualties were integral to the sacrifice that these soldiers made on behalf of their country?

I don't see Ann as "glib." In fact, I don't know politically where she stands except that she seems to be slightly left of center, but is not doctrinaire about her beliefs or actions - she seems more pragmatic and honest than anything else.

One of the things that attracted me to this blog was the humor and sense of play, along with the sense that Ann isn't easily offended by either the platitudes of the extremes or the rough language of the regulars.

I don't know what she will post on, what she will comment about, or what she will say. She's not predictable, and yet it's always predictable that she'll post something that gets the trolls in yet another lather about her violating some lefty or righty meme.

You don't like that she throws "red meat" to the conservatives?

I have an easy answer for you: stop stopping by. If you're that easily offended, you need to find ways to avoid the conflict of finding out that other people don't think just like you do.

And while you're at it, go back to clutching your pearls. It makes you ever-so-much-more attractive.

Althouse:"I'm tired of pointing out that I was left with a choice of 2 individuals, neither of whom I trusted.".The fact that you didn't trust either of them doesn't mean that they were both equally untrustworthy. You probably could have trusted, for example, that John McCain wouldn't try to nationalize 1/6th of the economy in the face of +10% unemployment.

On the other hand, most of us knew that Obama would try to do exactly that kind of dreadful thing. Why? Because he was saying so all along. Because that's what the modern Democrat aches to do.

"Bushitler" is an unhinged thing to say. I have no problem pointing that out and stood against those who would have said such a thing. The right wing should do the same with their loonies. Especially when it comes to promoting fears of "white slavery" and other garbage.

Red meat for the running dogs keeps their coats nice and healthy! But I don't know what a wingnut is supposed to do with red meat? Tighten it together? Package it efficiently for conveyance to markets?

"She's not predictable, and yet it's always predictable that she'll post something that gets the trolls in yet another lather about her violating some lefty or righty meme."

Maybe I'm a little less naive than you, Miller. But I seem to find a need to engage controversy for its own sake as predictable as a heat-seeking missile's need to engage an F16. But maybe that's just me.

As for Ann voting for Obama instead of McCain: I think she explained herself very cogently (not that she needs to explain herself, of course).

Given what she saw of McCain and Obama, and trusting her own judgment as to who would be better, she went with someone that she considered would vote from the thoughtful center and not the poltroon left.

Obama has shown himself to not be worthy of that trust.

She is continuing to express her own beliefs and judgments. How is this different before the election than after the election?

She's not someone the Administration is currying for favors, so she gets to express herself quite plainly here, in The New York Times, and by proxy on the Rush Limbaugh show. I think that's a great place to be.

If you find that hard to swallow, start your own blog. It's not that difficult. I have my own, and I get to speak my mind without much flack from the Administration.

Ann, ideas have consequences. Voting for the slick liberal Democrat because the Republican "isn't a solid, coherent conservative" suggests that you didn't really care about where the candidates were likely to take the country. Liberal or conservative? The conservative is less coherent, so I'll vote for the liberal. That's glib.

Granted, McCain is sort of a mush politically, but he wasn't out there swinging a verbal meat axe at vast swaths of American society he doesn't like. Obama did. That's a bad sign for a "uniter" to talk like that. A McCain presidency would have given Obama four years to get his shit together -- and for America to get to know him better, so we could decide whether we wanted to go the direction he was going to take us.

Obama was a complete crap shoot, and as it turned out, America rolled snake eyes. Come 2012, we'll be sadder but wiser; but the cost of that one bet is sure to be horrific.

On the subject of voting, I always thought that when presented with a choice of two evils, you were supposed to vote for the lesser evil. Unless of course one of the evils is C'thulhu. Then of course you vote for the greater evil, so you can be eaten last. Or... is that what "reluctant" Obama voters did?

And here's my last prediction before I leave it to you: No serious discussion of the health care bill will take place. Why? Because it is not as easy to spin that as a case of Obama proving his a) incompetence, b) deviousness, c) lack of maturity, d) lack of political skill, e) a combination of any of those traits or anything else that makes Obama looks as bad as Rush Limbaugh wants him to look.

Brazilian: Given what she saw of McCain and Obama, and trusting her own judgment as to who would be better, she went with someone that she considered would vote from the thoughtful center and not the poltroon left.

Did you mean "lead" from the thoughtful center, and not "vote"?Trusting one's judgement includes analyzing lots of information, not just hoping the younger guy is going to bring hope and change, with NO TRACK RECORD to stand on.

I never remember anyone serious posting "Bushitler" as a serious dig against the president here, ever. And most of the volume behind those cries occurred around 2003, when we invaded Iraq - long before I ever strolled around the well-maintained gardens of this place. By that time, which was 2006 or so, the hard left wasn't as loud or as notable. But that was because the moderate left, independents, the middle and even moderate Republicans had had enough of Bush. So say what you want about me or those who cried "Bushitler", for that matter. The fact is that they crumbled and in time the moderate right (if there's any of you left here) will have to see if the wingnuts on your side are on to anything substantive or not. My guess is that they aren't. They really are just showing their paranoia, extremism and political disinterest. And nothing more.

Although moderation and tolerance are virtues, voting from the "political center" in itself isn't necessarily so. Perhaps it's a good guide, Republican. Being wary of extremists generally is a good guide. But my take on Obama is he listens to respected arguments from around the political spectrum and then weighs a decision. But let's not confuse that virtue with centrism as if centrism itself were, ipso facto (to borrow a phrase Simon loved and Trooper York made fun of him for) always, necessarily a stronger virtue.

The best reasoned arguments are the best virtues in this day and age. Perhaps Obama will help win some of those for "the left". Perhaps they will be won for "the right." But whether one or another side of the red-blue divide is rewarded is hardly my concern. And the way independents see it, is hardly Obama's concern either.

A few people here see it differently. But I think they're being incredibly myopic. So do other conservatives.

Going against the Republicans is like going against the Muslim terrorist at Fort Hood? So now, the shift from Afghanistan is going to be a change of venues such that now we are no longer fighting the war on terror, but are now fighting the war on Republicans, and we are supposed to use our vote like a gun and annihilate the monstrous Republicans?

I guess that's what would be going through my mind as I untangled this comparison if I were a Democratic legislator.

He's saying that the Republicans are like the Muslim terrorist at Fort Hood, and that we ought to gun them down, and call it patriotism.

Goodness. I wonder what party Kimberly Munley belongs to. Does she want her action to be allegorized in this fashion? Would she condone this, or condemn it?

How is a statement regarding heat-seeking missiles and the aircraft they target patriotic or not? Heat-seeking missiles target aircraft that give off heat, period. That includes F16s. Hence the development of technology (which Americans use) that causes heat-seeking missiles to deviate from their target. So if you want to make a comparison, what matters is whether MiGs or F16s give off more heat.

Maybe if any of you cared to give off more light than heat, you could shed some light on that matter. But you probably don't.

So Democrats should vote Obama's conscience, rather than going with their constituents?

No actually they should vote with their constituents, who by substantial margins favor the health care reform they voted Democrats in to pass. Like in Joe Lieberman case - every single district in CT, who were recently polled, favor the Dems public option. And he has vowed to filibuster it, in favor of his insurance donors and his wife's lobbying interests.

There's the new (old) meme: The damn insurance lobby. How dare private insurance fight for its life! 2-3% profits are just too high. Sadly, the big government lobby can beat up the private health insurance lobby.

Stick to your principles, Joe.

Deficit busting tax hiking government controlled health care is NOT what this nation wants.

According to some people's morality, nobody has any right to make a profit in medical care. Medical care being a basic human right and all. Which logically means that food should also be profit-free, which it isn't! Or how about the ultimate human need - shelter? It's impossible to get it affordable! We need a public option for real estate too.

Paco, you might have a point if the blog authoress had at some time between the election and now indicated that she had made an error in judgment. However, her November 1 post stated that faced with the same choice today, she would still vote for Obama. The reasoning was glib, in my view, and according to her, it hasn't reflected any change since the election, so my observation stands.

Scott - you forget one thing. McCain being President would cripple the GOP for the next 25 years. So even as a political calculation I would have changed my vote to Obama in 2008 IF it would have mattered in my state, which is a VERY blue one. I'm pretty sure Althouse sees it like this too.

Alex, if you care more about the survival of the GOP than you do of the country, then you're right, Obama's election hurts the Republicans less than a McCain presidency would have.

But a McCain presidency would have slowed the collapse of the United States government into unfettered statism. That would have been better for the country. At least it might have kicked the national healthcare can down the road another four years. And we would have a president that wouldn't act like a deer in the headlights with respect to foreign policy.

Scott - I don't believe McCain would have slowed down the statism train more then a couple of years. Then the Democrats would get 300 seats in the House after 2010 and 70 in the Senate, followed by Obama winning the White House in 2012 with 500 electoral votes. THAT would have been a much worse disaster then what is current unfolding. Wargaming!

Also take things in perspective. The GOP had complete control of the government in 2001, 2003-2006. That's 5 years of total control. Now the voters in 2008 decided to give the Dems at least 2 years of control. That's what happens in our democracy. I think the time of one party dominating for decades is over.

Alex, even a couple of years would have helped. America is on the verge of a civil war right now. I don't see how stepping aside and letting the Democrats catalyze it is in the best interest of the American people.

Scott said... With all due respect, Ann, I think it's a little off to call Obama glib when you committed the equally glib act of voting for the guy. What the hell do you expect from him, anyway?

With all due respect, Scott, you are sounding stupid.

Do you think your vote for this candidate or that locks you into mindless support or silence if they disappoint your expectations?

And true respect means that you should respect the careful considered opinion of many who actually vote against your pet candidate by what they think are well-thought out reasons for doing so.

Yes, some good people backed Hillary and Mitt Romney, even though they lost. Nothing glib about it. Some good people backed Bush and were terrible disappointed with the results.

================Barf on Obama using the soldiers again as a prop. Bush too had his moments of overworship of "The Heroes" but at least you suspect he was halfway sincere between his bootlicks to his Neocon and Corporatist mentors.

But this de rigeur fawning over anything military is nauseating to this Vet. What is next? Ads at Burger King with soldiers (and woman heroes too!!) chomping on a Whopper and fries..."Food of Our Special Heroes"?????And if you notice, pandering politicians have made "thank you for your service, or for you being an uncle whose second nephew is a Hero in Iraq" - the equivalent of "Dominus Vobiscum" after "Lord be with you" or "Allahu Akbar" after "There is no god but Allah?

It's pathetic. I mentioned a little oolie about the Magic Kingdom (the KSA variety) in a party once..and off-handedly mentioned I was stuck there for the Gulf War, then briefly Kuwait post-liberation. And the dude stopped and turned two friends towards me..."A Hero! He sacrificed and risked his life for us in war! Thank you for your service." (Who was a happy REMF officer helping whack Iraqis from a safe distance. Except for two Scud inbound attacks when I was muttering Oh crap Oh crap because they were in such a hurry to get stuff running in one mega-tent we moved into that they "forgot" to build a shelter within 300 meters.)

And the guy was an asshole. He could care less that I was in a minor spot in a minor conflict 20 years ago, almost. He just wanted other people to see him "revere and deeply thank" my service in the most crass, insincere, pro forma way.

Ann, a lot of people have decided to give you a hard time about voting for Obama (I stayed with McCain with a lot of reservations; my vote was as much for Miss Sarah as anything else). At least you took your shot, that's more than the ones who stayed home did. That's all anyone can ask.

And you're honest enough to say you were wrong. How many of the people giving you Hell would do that?

Here's Althouse denouncing the free market and pining for more and bigger government led by Barack Obama:

* "I am inclined to think that with the development of complex securities and the pursuit of profit along the edge of disaster, the free market failed spectacularly. When we need new regulation, Obama effectively associated McCain with his party's love of deregulation."

What is not written anywhere in any of Ann Althouse's writings (before the election) is that the United States cannot trust Barack Obama. Nowhere does she counsel her readers that Barack Obama is not trustworthy.

Never does she explain how it is that she can vote for a President she does not trust to lead America. Or how John McCain, with an 80-year family history of fighting for American, how cannot be trusted.

Barack Obama is not my fault. I did not fucking elect him. He is not my fucking President. I do not trust him to lead this country. I want him fucking impeached, tried as a war criminal, and hung.

How brave, these Democrats, these valiant few, risking life and limb to spend other people's money.

"I only regret that I have but one vote to give my country".

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria suffragium".

"For everything there is a season,And a time for every matter under heaven:A time to be born, and a time to die;A time to kill, and a time to heal;A time for war, and a time for peace;A time for liberty, and a time for control."

The fact of the matter is that John McCain had a 40-year history of service to his country. His family history of service to the United States preceded him by another 40 years. There was nothing in his background to suggest that he could not be trusted.

One may not want to vote for John McCain, but one cannot say he was untrustworthy.

Barack Obama proudly hung out with a fucking terrorist - Bill Ayers, who bombed people. There was much in his background that would cause one to have good reason not to trust Barack Obama - including his 10 minutes of experience on the national stage.

For Althouse to say that neither man could be trusted is horseshit and I won't put up with it.

Florida: The fact of the matter is that John McCain had a 40-year history of service to his country. His family history of service to the United States preceded him by another 40 years. There was nothing in his background to suggest that he could not be trusted.

He suspended his campaign at one point, picked a Vice President who couldn't handle interviews and then sent her on interviews, backed the bank bailout, and seemed to be out of touch on where the economy was headed.

And picking up where Jason left off, John McCain and his sidekick Lindsay "the human weasel" Graham were legendary for their treacherous backstabbing of Republicans. Next to Arlen Spector, McCain was the least trusted Senator in either camp in 2008.

Healthcare spending is going to take care of itself, so many people don't have jobs now and can't afford to spend money on it.

Our big problem right now isn't healthcare, it's unemployment. It would be nice if the Democrats would focus on unemployment. Instead, the Democrats are sticking all potential employers with an 8% tax they will have to pay on each new employee. Say goodbye to lots of entry level jobs and small business jobs where people can get experience.

Let's not forget the tax they are putting on employers. Try getting a raise after that passes, you know the cost savings are going to come out of the pockets of the working class.

As I remember a year ago the making of a risky vote for the smiling and loving and younger, and first non-white man for President seemed to lots of folks to be an acceptible risk to take. That was in 20/20 hindsight a disaster. No one then would seriously vet the "first clean black man" with a shot at President for the same reasons no one would vet Major Hasan...because of the fear of the slander machinery that always strikes to personally attack public truth tellers. We have seen several good examples of that machinery at work in this thread already. And for some reason the over the top personae of the commenter Florida is leading the wolf pack of personal slander attackers today. Very interesting. We do need to learn from 2008 that the Con-man is the man who challenges you to have confidence in his love for you and in his wild promises implying that to refuse his challenge that you show a lack of courage. That is exactly what Obama told the Blue Dogs in the House vote last night with is loving smile at full strength. What a gift.

"He suspended his campaign at one point, picked a Vice President who couldn't handle interviews and then sent her on interviews, backed the bank bailout, and seemed to be out of touch on where the economy was headed."

All good reasons not to vote for John McCain. He wasn't a particularly good candidate.

But he had a 40-year career in the military and US government. Whether we could trust John McCain was never at issue.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, launched his nascent political career in the living room of a fucking domestic terrorist.

He was clearly not trustworthy and has demonstrated time and again since his election that he cannot be trusted.

Florida: The fact of the matter is that John McCain had a 40-year history of service to his country. His family history of service to the United States preceded him by another 40 years. There was nothing in his background to suggest that he could not be trusted.

He suspended his campaign at one point, picked a Vice President who couldn't handle interviews and then sent her on interviews, backed the bank bailout, and seemed to be out of touch on where the economy was headed

McCain suspended his campaign because the President of the United States asked him to come back to DC to help deal with an economic emergency.

Sarah Palin, of course, can handle interviews just fine. She was prepped for the Gibson and Couric interviews by people who had become more interested that she fail than Obambi and who did everything they could to make her look bad.

A lot of other people agonized over those bailouts, including the President, largely because Bernanke and Paulson, especially Paulson, did their dead level best to scare people into doing something they would not normally have done.Some of them were people more conservative than McCain.

As for McCain's grasp of the economy, when he said most sectors of the economy were in good shape, he was right. It was in the interest of the Obama campaign, and, by extension, the media to paint this as McCain not having a clue. Supporting TARP did more harm than anything else.

You have a great grasp of lefty talking points and their attempt to rewrite history. Too bad you haven't got a grasp of the facts.

Flo, honey, calm down. Ann's admitted she was wrong and wishes she hadn't done it. You're beating a dead horse here; get mad at Pelosi Galore and the rest of the commies that have put us in this mess.

Seriously, what is so hard about that? What kind of dolt didn't know that Obama was a flaming Leftist and that McCain (whatever his flaws) was the perfect alternative in the du jour political climate.If you wanted to win the War on Terror(hell, if you even cared about the War on Terror) you would have never, ever voted for Barack Obama. It's a shame. I think many Republicans/Conservatives got all wee-wee'd up that their candidate didn't get the Party nod.Then they pouted themselves into an Obama Presidency.

Althouse:"I'm trying to imagine the political environment that Democrats occupy. A President glibly lays out that analogy, and it is received — without any wincing or taint of disgust — as awesome inspiration."

There's no questioning what ground these heartless fucks occupy. They occupy the ground that uses dead people still warm and dripping on the ground as political props to pass their power-grabbing legislation.

Here's something to ponder, Ann:

A President and his wife quietly visited the wounded this weekend. You didn't read about it because they alerted the base commander to warn they wanted no media coverage of the visit.

The President and his wife thanked these men and women for their service and offered what comfort they could to the grieving families of the fallen.

No ... it wasn't Barack and Michelle Obama visiting the killed and those wounded by the Muslim terrorist.

It was President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.

That's the difference between a great man, and your president Barack Obama. Your President uses the dead (don't waste a crisis) to expand his government power.

Maybe the terrorist at Fort Hood got all wee-weed up. Perhaps that's the official explanation, and how he is like the Republicans that the Democrats must confront in their vote for enlarging the Federal Government by swallowing yet one more industry, and destroying another quarter of the private sector.

Forget about Afghanistan. Once the country is communist, we'll go back and whip em!

edutcher: McCain suspended his campaign because the President of the United States asked him to come back to DC to help deal with an economic emergency.

No one asked him to suspend his campaign, that was his own publicity stunt which he should have known would go the way it did.

Sarah Palin, of course, can handle interviews just fine. She was prepped for the Gibson and Couric interviews by people who had become more interested that she fail than Obambi and who did everything they could to make her look bad.

It doesn't matter who prepped her, I watched her interviews saying "I could give better answers than this!"

She sucked, it was an embarrassment of her own making, and it was all her fault. And she needs to take some personal responsibility for it. She should be on a national apology tour.

A lot of other people agonized over those bailouts, including the President, largely because Bernanke and Paulson, especially Paulson, did their dead level best to scare people into doing something they would not normally have done.Some of them were people more conservative than McCain.

George Bush having also been "scared", as you put it, does not impress me at all. If McCain was so scared that he was fooled into taking the stance he did, then he was not worthy of my trust.

As for McCain's grasp of the economy, when he said most sectors of the economy were in good shape, he was right. It was in the interest of the Obama campaign, and, by extension, the media to paint this as McCain not having a clue. Supporting TARP did more harm than anything else.

He's how old and he hasn't opened up some economics books, or asked the thousands of people around him to educate him on the subject?

You have a great grasp of lefty talking points and their attempt to rewrite history. Too bad you haven't got a grasp of the facts.

I'm using your facts and I still don't think it was a better idea to vote for him than Obama--and I voted for McCain. What was I thinking? He's an idiot! I want my money back!

"Given what she saw of McCain and Obama, and trusting her own judgment as to who would be better, she went with someone that she considered would vote from the thoughtful center and not the poltroon left.

Obama has shown himself to not be worthy of that trust."

But miller, how could anyone not be aware of that ahead of time? Sure, Obama voted "present" a lot, but it's not like he had a completely blank record. And what he had was completely at variance with his phony "centrist" schtick.

Paco, it's not about being unable to criticize the one you voted for, it's about asking, "How could you possibly not have foreseen this? All the rest of us did!"

"There are more than enough well reasoned arguments to go around on both sides of the divide. The problem is that we are a nation talking AT each other instead of WITH each other."

When being robbed at gunpoint, I think one can be excused for talking AT the robber and his cohorts rather than engaging them in reasoned dialog. Because at the end of the day, they have the gun and you don't.

Almost as glib as a blogger who writes a lengthy post regarding the same incident, raising questions about the military's poor oversight of a mentally ill, homicidal army officer who was about to be shipped to Afghanistan, and concludes with the non sequitur that Obama should "demonstrate leadership" by shipping off as many more troops to that country as possible.

Florida wrote: A President and his wife quietly visited the wounded this weekend. You didn't read about it because they alerted the base commander to warn they wanted no media coverage of the visit.

It was President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.

I suspect even the lefty trolls had no difficulty figuring this out. Just as there is no difficulty in figuring out that such a thing would never occur to Obama unless there were political points to be scored.

It's the fundamental difference between decent human beings and opportunistic political hacks.

Ann's "political environment that Washington Democrats occupy" would be the world of political hacks.

No one asked him to suspend his campaign, that was his own publicity stunt which he should have known would go the way it did.

The President asked for him personally and I don't think it was a "stunt". McCain does care about this country and, although he is a little too eager to "reach out across the aisle to our friends in the Democratic Party", I don't think he was trying to snow anyone. If he wanted to do that, he would have opposed TARP only because Obama was for it, the way Dick Morris wanted him to.

It doesn't matter who prepped her, I watched her interviews saying "I could give better answers than this!"

She sucked, it was an embarrassment of her own making, and it was all her fault. And she needs to take some personal responsibility for it. She should be on a national apology tour.

Baloney!! That's out of the Montagne/Freder/fls songbook. Even at the time, people like O'Reilly (not my favorite guy BTW) were crying set-up. She has done tougher interviews and come out fine. More to the point, she has become one of the biggest thorns in Barry's side. For that, she deserves thanks.

George Bush having also been "scared", as you put it, does not impress me at all. If McCain was so scared that he was fooled into taking the stance he did, then he was not worthy of my trust.

A lot of good people took Paulson at his word and assumed the sky would fall or, more importantly, Wall Street would collapse, John Cornyn, for one. Not exactly another Lindsey Graham, but you say you voted for McCain. So how did you when you saw through TARP?

He's how old and he hasn't opened up some economics books, or asked the thousands of people around him to educate him on the subject?

You didn't answer the question. Most sectors of the economy were in good shape and better handling of the bank mess would have prevented what we have now. Shame on McCain for going along with TARP (I disagreed with him and Dubya when I reflected on it before the election), but his basic grasp of the economy was correct.

I'm using your facts and I still don't think it was a better idea to vote for him than Obama--and I voted for McCain. What was I thinking? He's an idiot! I want my money back!

Then why didn't you vote for The Won? It certainly sounds like you've been in his camp all along.

The point of the post was that there is something inappropriately creepy about Obama using the deaths of 13 of the soldiers he commands to support a partisan political argument.

Ann's other point was the strangeness of the fact that the audience seems to have embraced his analogy as rhetorical brilliance. The audience of course were members of Congress, who are used to all sorts of expedient political argument.

For those who find Obama's comments perfectly acceptable, please try the following.

Imagine Obama making the same speech to a group of soldiers, perhaps veterans of the current conflict or of former conflicts.

Imagine, if you can, the reaction of that audience to such a statement.

The reaction would be quiet. These are American soldiers, who respect the office Obama holds and are trained in discipline and respect. But the quiet would be incredulous and perhaps hostile, from people who are proud to serve but adverse to being used.

Obama risks losing the respect of the men and women he commands. I fear he can not imagine how damaging that loss would be.

Hey asshole, you forgot to mention the part where Malik Hasan was an Islamic terrorist who attended the same radical Mosque inside the United States, and at the same time, as three of the 9/11 hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center.

This man wasn't just mentally ill. He had a specific kind of mental illness: He was Islamic, so he had Islamic Kill People Syndrome.

I've noticed a disturbing move toward criticizing Althouse directly and personally. I'm not talking about disagreeing with her. I disagree with her! I'm talking about a tendency to make a discussion about Althouse as a person rather than about whatever subject is being discussed.

This goes for those who think that everything about Obama has to be a personal attack about her vote, certainly. Frankly, it's a stupid charge to make and utterly pointless this far after the fact.

But mostly I'm seeing those who identify themselves as "left" making every blog topic about Althouse personally and attacking her for speaking. Apparently she's not talking about the right things.

And we must all discuss the right things.

This is not disagreeing on substance. It's trying to shut people up.

I doubt very much that Althouse is going to give in to this attempt at shaming her to shut her up. I think it very likely that part of the reason that there seems to be so very much "red meat" thrown to conservatives here is in defiance of that attempt to stifle speech.

It's disturbing that those who would most certainly claim to be in favor of speech made freely and the vibrancy of a lively debate between vastly disparate positions, really are trying to shut down discussion of which they do not approve by making their responses personal.

These are the minds that will be making decisions for us for quite a while.

Their time just got shorter.

Remember that the taxes to pay for healthcare kick in years before the benefit.

Here's a scenario: The wishful-thinking marks that voted for the Dems scrape the pie off their faces. A new congressional majority either kills or drastically scales back the bill. This happens before any of the benefits are paid out. A desperate Obama, running on nothing in 2012, takes credit for deficit reduction.

"I didn't vote for President Obama but I don't think Althouse's reasons for doing so were glib at all. Go back and read her post on why she was making that decision, don't just be an echo chamber."

Fair enough but many of us were saying his pre election speeches (like the race speech) were filled with the same pap... and produced the same responses from his partisan fans (the man is a genius... best speech since Lincoln... blaw blaw blaw)... but NOW she sees it too.

What are they going to do, defend Obama? They have no idea how. I defend Obama better than they do and I don't even like him.

So Althouse voted for Obama, McCain was no prize either. I haven't been satisfied with any President since Reagan. This last batch--Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Gulliani, Huckabee, Thompson, Palin (yeah, I'm sticking her in), Biden, and Romney--they all suck, too.

All this criticism of Althouse is kind of funny, because I'm sure she could care less, being too busy wearing out her new husband.

I'd put this on one of the open threads, but the pictures are so pretty and the audio clip is so disgusting.

"A minority view" about the Fort Hood massacre.

Well, good enough, and so very brave of the young man to say what he did in a country where he will not be dragged out and hung by an outraged populace.

This is what our media enables when it vilifies the military, makes this about PTSD and finds excuses for the murderer. This is what Obama enables when he says we can't know fully why this happened, mushy language instead of utterly clear condemnation of the man, putting on him full responsibility for his own actions, and clear condemnation of the fact that the murderer clearly felt this is what God required of him.

Yeah, I called him a murder rather than a terrorist... he was a loser wanna-be terrorist murderer pathetic jihadist poseur.

And a well spoken, obviously American born and bred, young man from his old church "can't condemn him" and, after all, "he killed soldiers headed to Afghanistan."

But Meade, how do you find the first person all the way back in the chain of command who tells everyone to hold back in their treatment of radical Islam? It's pervasive throughout our institutions and civil society. Where do we begin to unravel this sickness?

One of the soldiers who was shot didn't really know what Allahu Akbar meant! Don't they train soldiers going into combat what radical Islam sounds like?

The United States will survive this one-term malignant narcissist. The only question is, how long will it take to repair the damage, and will we continue allow the perps to get away with it?

Hmmm.. what makes you sure about him being a one termer? The only incumbents to lose the Presidency in the last 40 years are Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush - two Presidents who had as much charisma as wooden boxes.

Most people knew who Obama was and STILL voted for him - if they didnt they proved to be careless - why should any one count on them being any less careless in 2012 ?

For a country that has a lot of people consumed with such massive white guilt, voting against a black President would be a very difficult decision.

Besides, he is going to be running against a Republican who will have the committed support of at most 40% of the national electorate -while the Dems still have the majority of Hispanics and of course blacks...

PatCA, Synova: Yes, those are some of the hard questions that will have to be answered. It looks like it may be up to all of us to keep asking the questions until we have the answers as many of our political leaders are clearly not up to task.

I was discussing PelosiCare yesterday with a friend who sells insurance. And he opined that he was amazed at how few people now admit to having voted for President Obama a year ago. People we know did. I expect that in his family and his wives, they were the only ones to vote for McCain, and their (cumulative) ten siblings voted for Obama.

There were a lot of people who got caught up in the moment, and voting for Obama just seemed like the thing to do at the time. It was the path of least resistance. The MSM was essentially telling every one to do it. All their friends were telling them to do it. Etc. It is what everyone was doing a year ago. Something like buying that absolutely horrid piece of clothing that is so popular this year, and finding out that six months later you wonder where you lost your senses when you bought it. You surely aren't going to ever wear it (thankfully, I am a guy, so am presumably less likely to fall into that than those of the fairer sex seem to be).

So, I don't condemn our hostess here for her vote a year ago. I expect that it would have been hard not to in the environment in Madison a year ago. Plus, McCain was a very flawed candidate. His temper is legendary, and he really didn't run a very good campaign. Add to that his pandering to the Democrats, and putting his name on McCain-Feingold. Plus, a lot more.

I know people a lot more conservative than Ann who either voted for Obama, or didn't vote for either of them. And, I know conservatives who were so dispirited that they just stayed home (and, by doing that, gave us the Congress that is legislating so recklessly).

I have said this before here, but I respect that Ann was willing to stand up and go on the record saying how she was voting and why. She could have done like so many of the friends and family that that friend of mine was talking about, who voted for Obama, and are playing dumb now.

Well said. There have been only a few here who crossed the line in criticizing her vote. But I think Althouse can take it - even with one of her hands tied behind her back just to make it a fair fight.

Anyway, it is a very common, American experience to regret one's choice in the election booth. That is because our pols are so good at disappointing their supporters.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm nailed it on one of the first comments here (11/8/09 10:26 AM).

The way I (& BSR, if I may be so bold as to speak for) read it anyway, Obama did the opposite of what many here (including The NY Daily News, & Ann, herself) claim he did.

Obama wasn't saying (or even suggesting) that voting for the healthcare bill when it may mean losing an election later on was as brave and noble a sacrifice as putting on the uniform and dying for one's country (a classic chickenhawk argument, if ever there was one.)

He was saying the exact opposite; that sitting in congress making a politically unpopular vote is no sacrifice at all, compared to the men & women who wear the uniform and risk their lives for this country.

Not that one is analogous to the other; but that the two actions are miles apart on the great sacrifice-meter.

So Althouse voted for Obama, McCain was no prize either. I haven't been satisfied with any President since Reagan. This last batch--Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Gulliani, Huckabee, Thompson, Palin (yeah, I'm sticking her in), Biden, and Romney--they all suck, too.

Thompson didn't suck until he dropped out. I still think he was the best of the bunch, and his lack of "Washington insider"-ness was exactly what the country needed.

It's too bad that, on many occasions, the best candidate for President is the one who doesn't want to be President. (That worked out pretty well a few centuries ago for a guy with wooden teeth, if I recall.)

Ralph L quoted and responded:"'predictable as a heat-seeking missile's need to engage an F16'Predictably anti-American. We Red Meaters would have said MiG or goat-fucking orgy."

EXACTLY -- that struck me too. Even if its mere cluelessness about basic knowledge of the US military (giving benefit of the doubt and all) rather than reflexive anti-Americanism bubbling up from the subconscious, its quite telling of the mindset and calls further into question the judgment of the original speaker.

Alex said:"McCain being President would cripple the GOP for the next 25 years. So even as a political calculation I would have changed my vote to Obama in 2008 IF it would have mattered in my state, which is a VERY blue one."

I think that the logic of the 2nd half of that is precisely backward, if by the 1st part you mean that it was better to get a leftie pres whose backlash would move the big picture pendulum back to the principled right, rather than a damaging McCain.

While we're being Machiavellian and all, given being in a blue state where a vote for a very flawed McCain was actually in no danger of succeeding, the correct move would have actually been to have gone ahead and voted for him (McCain), to blunt any Obama claim to a dangerous runaway 'mandate'.

Unless you're a helluva lot riskier gambler than I am with the fate of our country, in which case you'd double down on the bitter medicine of an unfettered Obama.

newscaper - I did vote for McCain precisely for the reason you stated - to blunt the idea that Obama had an overwhelming mandate. Also right now, I'd much rather have Obama with 10.2% unemployment then McCain. That would be a friggen nightmare for the GOP.

In all of the complaints about Bush & Rumsfeld's earlier handling of Iraq, one that most of the CW even on the right has accepted is that more troops earlier as some called for (all the way back to Shinseki *very* early -- and ignoring that the Turkey blocked the 4th ID from properly rolling thru Sunni areas form the north) would have averted the slow motion civil war that almost went fully hot...

However, I'm still not sure I buy it -- a much heavier footprint early on, while apparently enhancing security at the point of a gun, would quite likely have made us look *more* the heavy-handed occupiers and invaders, worse in the longer run -- and damned sure would have been used by domestic and int'l left-wing critics against us even more.

I'm thinking the argument can be made pretty strongly that the success of the Surge, in conjunction with the Sunni Awakening in Anbar (as well as growing Shia rjection of their Mahdi Militia and other glorified gangs) was only really possible because the ordinary people of Iraq got what many of them thought they wanted -- an insurgency and a chance to settle scores at home -- and in the end got a belly full that made them want to finally settle down more, from the bottom up.

Unfortunately its so damned hard to predict which way the chips fall in advance.

On a related note, Rummy caught hell for all the Iraqi looting in the immediate aftermath -- but, if US soldiers had been shooting unarmed Iraqis in the streets, that backlash would have been worse. Although we got blamed for it by the natural human need for scapegoats (fanned by opportunists there and here), in the end the video showed *Iraqis* doing the damage and had to make some difference in the long run. By contrast, a US Army-in-Iraq equivalent of the classic photo of the Vietnam ARVN colonel doing a summary execution of a VC (which IIRC was actually *legal*, even under Geneva) would have been incredibly damaging, particularly here at home.

One last P.S. -- now we are seeing that Bush & Rummy focusing nation building more on Iraq than the 'stan just may have been wiser after all too, as Obama risks becoming as paralyzed as LBJ.

"He was saying the exact opposite; that sitting in congress making a politically unpopular vote is no sacrifice at all, compared to the men & women who wear the uniform and risk their lives for this country.

"Not that one is analogous to the other; but that the two actions are miles apart on the great sacrifice-meter."

If that's the case, why use the analogy? In what sense is voting for something that may lose you a seat later on like military sacrifice AT ALL?

Florida, you're half-right or more than half-right about the way the media is trying to reframe the Fort Hood shooting, Obama's attitudes and outlook, and some of the rest, but you're serving their interests with your own personal attitude.

Regarding McCain, he was a disaster as a candidate, no question about it. He gave every impression of not even understanding what was going on, to the point of saying that there was no need to fear Obama, and an utter refusal to reach out to the voters who might possibly have put him over the top.

I did vote for him, even so, because the Democrats are such a disaster. The core problem, though, is that the elite Republicans thought they could use the intense desire to avoid a Democratic Party sweep of all branches to force 'Rudy McRomney' down the throats of the GOP base, especially the social conservatives.

We saw the result, and if they try it again in 2012, we'll very likely see Obama Term II.

Penny said: "There are more than enough well reasoned arguments to go around on both sides of the divide. The problem is that we are a nation talking AT each other instead of WITH each other."

It's inevitable, because the two major factions have core beliefs that are not just different, but totally incompatible. This is most obvious on issues like abortion, where very little grey area can possibly exist, but it's true almost across the board, on things like the proper role of the state, internationalism and sovereignty, national security, religious freedom, free speech, etc.

For example, a person who takes as a given that the concept of a national health care plan is wrong and dangerous and a person who takes as a given that the government is responsible for economic and personal security can only talk AT each other, because each one dismisses the other's POV out of hand as wrong by definition.

A person who starts his thinking with the assumption that total national sovereingty is non-negotiable can only talk AT a person who craves a world state, and vice versa.

It's most glaringly obvious in the social issues, but the divide has come to permeate everything.

Can you imagine the left-wing media outrage if Bush had used the occasion of a military mass murder in order to promote a completely partisan domestic agenda?

I mean, they went %$#@ing berserk any time he spoke about 9-11, can you imagine the reaction if he stated that "the victims of that tragic day should remind us of the importance of passing No Child Left Behind legislation"?

Obama makes lots of glib comments. He thinks nothing of saying that this industry or that one needs to be "bankrupted" if they don't comply with his version of reality. He threatens us with civilian armies and involuntary servitude programs for our children. He makes lots of off the cuff remarks that are absolutely chilling and terrifying like that and has done so consistently both before and after his election. He has a lot that is psychopathic in him that way.

It is hard to believe that anyone could have missed this tendency before now. To give an ironic analogy of the sort that the leftists here clearly relish --- the people supporting Obama are the same type of people who promoted and retained Hasan in the military even after he had made all of those insane statements about jihad. It was the PC thing to do in both cases. Style and victim class trumps substance. That is clear to anyone not burdened with a left wing education.

Academia and the intellectual class as a whole in this country is incapable of thinking for themselves or of making a considered judgment. They are more concerned with whether Palin drops her g's and with whether they will be accepted by their peers than they are about the clear totalitarian ravings of a potential president.

Even Ann's current criticism is one of style. The wool drops from her eyes when Obama displays bad form more so than when Obama proposes to do bad things.

He was saying the exact opposite; that sitting in congress making a politically unpopular vote is no sacrifice at all, compared to the men & women who wear the uniform and risk their lives for this country.

Obama was saying, 'the soldiers put their lives on the line for their country, the very least you schmucks can do is put your careers on the line for my health care takeover agenda'.

He was trying to use the soldier's death to shame the congressmen into voting his way.

I have no idea, and neither does much of anyone else here, because no one seems to've heard or seen exactly what Obama actually said. Instead we have the comments of a third party, who was inspired by it, whatever it was, but who does not quote word or explain context.

In what sense is voting for something that may lose you a seat later on like military sacrifice AT ALL?

My reading of it is,to that to that one congressman, at least, Obama was saying it wasn't, which is why I'm so surprised to see so many here taking away & echo chambering exactly the opposite message.

It's incongruous and cheesy no matter which way you look at it.

Perhaps it is... But until I read exactly what Obama said in the meeting, and the context for it, I don't think there's enough info to come to a conclusion either way...

Obama was saying, 'the soldiers put their lives on the line for their country, the very least you schmucks can do is put your careers on the line for my health care takeover agenda'.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way at all, based on the report of the congressman who made the statement, anyway... HE certainly didn't see it that way, and with so many people twisting the contrast Obama seems to've made into an analogy that clearly wasn't there, and pretending he was saying the opposite of what he seems to've meant, I don't have a whole lotta faith in the reasoning of anyone who is so sure-fire certain of what Obama said or meant, when they don't have what I believe are absolutely necessary facts-- Obama's actual words in context --on which to base their conclusions.

With all due respect, a majority of the people commenting on this blog have their heds so far up their asses that their necks are traversing the colon. This anti-Obama obsession is disgusting and perverse. Like the problems we are in the middle of were his creation, or like anybody in the GOP or conservative movement have a clue about what to do to make things better except for more of the same "free market" crap that got us into this mess in the first place.

Why is that the right hates America and Americans so? Obama's speech made teh point that what dems are being asked to do in voting for this is not courageous when measured against true courage or valor (see, e.g., teh issues our GIs deal with every day, whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan or Ft. Hood). I shudder to think of what the state of GOP politics in Washington and in the US that they think that their political future benefits from calling President Obama a Nazi, a fascist, un-American, anti-American, or anything other than a leader who is genuinely trying to make things better, even though the GOP/conservatives disagree on how to go about doing it. But hey, if marginalizing the right is the objective, they are doing a very effective, albeit loud and abrasive, job of doing it.

Restated: Do what the people absolutely hate because, dammit, if they hate it, it MUST be good for them! What is this, the Cod Liver Oil theory of politics?

"These are the minds that will be making decisions for us for quite a while."

At least until the next election.

"The United States will survive this one-term malignant narcissist. The only question is, how long will it take to repair the damage..."9/11 was an indirect result of President Jimmy Carter's feckless foreign policy, so ... the over/under is 30 years of damage control.